The trial court correctly granted defendant landlord summary disposition of plaintiff’s slip-and-fall claim. The condition causing plaintiff’s fall, slush in an apartment building’s foyer, was open and obvious when viewed objectively, that is, “what an average user would have seen ...

Residential Funding Co. v. Saurman. (Lawyers Weekly No. 06-76806 – 2 pages) On November 10, 2011, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the April 21, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order ...

The trial court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s trip-and-fall case against defendant school because, despite plaintiff’s personal limitations, the condition that caused plaintiff to trip was not an objectively unreasonable risk to the average person. Facts “Plaintiff, a student at defendant school, ...

Where the trial court ordered the disputed property sold at auction after plaintiffs sued defendants for partition of the property, the court erred by barring the parties and their relatives from participating in the auction. Further, the trial must revisit ...

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 12, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address: (1) whether a mortgagee must affirmatively consent to the ...

The trial court incorrectly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint to abate defendant’s junkyard operation as a common-law nuisance. The court also incorrectly ruled that the junkyard was not subject to licensing requirements in plaintiff’s zoning ordinance and was not subject to plaintiff’s ...

Where defendant’s billboard was a pre-existing nonconforming use under a township’s zoning law, defendant’s modifications to the billboard, which eliminated some of the nonconformities, constituted a nuisance per se. The trial court correctly ordered defendant to remove the billboard because ...

Dascola v. YMCA of Lansing. (Lawyers Weekly No. 06-76680 – 3 pages) On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 19, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because ...

A dog-bite plaintiff’s statutory claim, MCL 287.351(1), was correctly dismissed because he was a trespasser on defendant’s property when the dog bit him. Plaintiff’s common-law claim is not viable because there was no evidence that defendant knew his dog had ...

Plaintiff is not entitled to a portion of his property-damage claim from defendant insurer. Defendant’s evidence supports the argument that some of the claimed damage was not caused by a fire and resulting water damage and instead existed before defendant ...